The Jeff and the English cause

Current Jeff position / Club / RWC English players
1 Harlequins 1 (Easter)
2 Saracens 2 (Stevens, Wigglesworth)
3 Sale 2 (Sheridan, Cueto)
4 London Irish 3 (Corbisiero, Armitage, Hape)
5 Exeter 0
6 Gloucester 1 (Tindall)
7 Bath 4 (Wilson, Mears, Moody, Banahan)
8 Wasps 2 (Simpson, Thompson)
9 Northampton 5 (Foden, Ashton, Lawes, Hartley, Wood)
10 Worcester 0
11 Leicester 6 + 1 (Youngs, Cole, Deacon, Tuilagi, Croft, Flood plus Waldrom)
12 Newcastle 0

And mix into that game minutes played and you may possibly construe a rationale for the Jeff to be suspended during International weeks.

Or maybe it's a good idea to import foreign 'nearly' talent (e.g. Waldrom) to ride any storm.







http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/gallery/2011/aug/22/rugbyworldcup2011-rugby-union#/?picture=378165082&index=29

Personally I think this is a discussion we should return to at the end of the season.

One of the (better) reasons for having play-offs is give teams heavily penalised by England calls a chance to still win the thing.

Don't worry, Leicester still have the LV= Cup to aim for.

Isnt it good thing that there are playoffs Portnoy?

Ozzy3213 wrote:

I would expect anyone to maintain an opinion unless they heard a convincing counter-view (like for me the rationality of a playoff system in a concession league).

I suspect that your responses are themselves :brokenrecord:s.

An autonomous nervous response to my views maybe?

I hope that you looked at the statistics before drawing a conclusion. And made a considered response.

Portnoy, it's cause and effect, isn't it? Let's look at the table as it was when last season finished:

1 Leicester Tigers 6 + 1 (Youngs, Cole, Deacon, Tuilagi, Croft, Flood plus Waldrom)
2 Saracens 2 (Stevens, Wigglesworth)
3 Gloucester 1 (Tindall)
4 Northampton Saints 5 (Foden, Ashton, Lawes, Hartley, Wood)
5 Bath Rugby 5 (Wilson, Mears, Moody, Banahan, Hape)
6 London Irish 2 (Corbisiero, Armitage)
7 Harlequins 1 (Easter)
8 Exeter Chiefs 0
9 London Wasps 2 (Simpson)
10 Sale Sharks 2 (Sheridan, Cueto)
11 Newcastle Falcons 0
12 Leeds Carnegie 1 (Thompson)

The top teams contributed the vast majority of players to the English cause - not unexpected and as it should be. By the end of this season, I'd expect to see a not dissimilar table

I agree that the LV cup should be played during the AI's normally but surely the whole season cant be completly changed every 4 years?

As mentioned above though, the playoff mean that a team who loses players can still finish 4th and go on to win the thing and if Leicester went on to do this I dont think it would be a huge surprise.

Its pretty unlikely that there is going to be much sympathy from the likes of Exeter and Worcester about Leicesters current situation though.

Bathman_in_London wrote:I agree that the LV cup should be played during the AI's normally but surely the whole season cant be completly changed every 4 years?

As mentioned above though, the playoff mean that a team who loses players can still finish 4th and go on to win the thing and if Leicester went on to do this I dont think it would be a huge surprise.

Its pretty unlikely that there is going to be much sympathy from the likes of Exeter and Worcester about Leicesters current situation though.

Damn right - tee hee!

red_stag wrote:Isnt it good thing that there are playoffs Portnoy?

Not necessarily Stag. As I have ceded, playoffs are appropriate in franchise leagues.

But they don't sit well in league structures.
They are an artificial sop to the less worthy in the league.

I wonder how Premier League football fans would react to such a system?

Relegation battles create the alternative to the dead rubber scenario in franchises.
In fact there are inevitable dead rubbers in a franchise system.

So in answer to your question. No. Nope. Negatory. There is no need for playoffs in a league system. But it may require an occasional mid-week game.

The system may not be fair or balanced. That said these business are all about survival. Their is no real growth plan for many of them. Once relegated their is no real gurantee you will return to top flight rugby. Most bottom half clubs therefore see the current situation in their interest.

Northampton, Bath & Leicester are trying to build top brands in the league, which will see a domination on their part if they are allowed to do so (by removal of the salary cap).

Premier Rugby is only interested in keeping the brand compeititve. With a consistent winner the league losses its apeal and fan base. Hence these shake ups. They already are losing the battle on player branding to France.

The problem (if you see it as a problem), is that each body has their own goals and direction. There is no real sense of development or welfare of the players.

I wouldnt rule out a scenario where Northampton, Bath and Leicester walk out on the league and join the Rabbo, as all the teams are similarly affected by player release and there are no spending Caps. I would imagine the RFU would aggree to this if Foreign Limitations are placed on those clubs.

I know people laugh at the notion but rumour has it Leicester already have sounded this possibilty out as an option.

I would argue that dead rubbers are few and far between in Super 15 and Pro 12 - both of whom have no relegation.

However England has its own set of circumstances which I appreciate and I don;t think they need or even should resort to franchises.

The comparisons with football are irrelevant they dont play during international windows - playoffs are the rugby solution which are accepted in almost every major league worldwide. As for midweek games - how many people will turn up on a Wednesday night to see a Falcons or Bath game?

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:Portnoy, it's cause and effect, isn't it? Let's look at the table as it was when last season finished:

1 Leicester Tigers 6 + 1 (Youngs, Cole, Deacon, Tuilagi, Croft, Flood plus Waldrom)
2 Saracens 2 (Stevens, Wigglesworth)
3 Gloucester 1 (Tindall)
4 Northampton Saints 5 (Foden, Ashton, Lawes, Hartley, Wood)
5 Bath Rugby 5 (Wilson, Mears, Moody, Banahan, Hape)
6 London Irish 2 (Corbisiero, Armitage)
7 Harlequins 1 (Easter)
8 Exeter Chiefs 0
9 London Wasps 2 (Simpson)
10 Sale Sharks 2 (Sheridan, Cueto)
11 Newcastle Falcons 0
12 Leeds Carnegie 1 (Thompson)

The top teams contributed the vast majority of players to the English cause - not unexpected and as it should be. By the end of this season, I'd expect to see a not dissimilar table

So do you really expect both Tigers and Saints to make it to the playoffs S?

Its different when your taking lots of OUR players off us though isnt it.....with regards to the premiership....

Parling
Youngs
Brooke
Flood

ring any bells????

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

Bathman_in_London wrote:I agree that the LV cup should be played during the AI's normally but surely the whole season cant be completly changed every 4 years?

As mentioned above though, the playoff mean that a team who loses players can still finish 4th and go on to win the thing and if Leicester went on to do this I dont think it would be a huge surprise.

Its pretty unlikely that there is going to be much sympathy from the likes of Exeter and Worcester about Leicesters current situation though.

Damn right - tee hee!

Or maybe that should have read 'unlikely to be much sympathy from anyone else!'

There are plenty of issues in domestic rugby at the moment but I dont think that having the biggest team in the country outside of the playoff places for a month or so is the most pressing one.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Its different when your taking lots of OUR players off us though isnt it.....with regards to the premiership....

Parling
Youngs
Brooke
Flood

ring any bells????

I know what you mean GF. And I sympathise wholeheartedly.

My pinnacles of sympathy go to Gosforth and Roundhay Park.

Portnoy wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:Portnoy, it's cause and effect, isn't it? Let's look at the table as it was when last season finished:

1 Leicester Tigers 6 + 1 (Youngs, Cole, Deacon, Tuilagi, Croft, Flood plus Waldrom)
2 Saracens 2 (Stevens, Wigglesworth)
3 Gloucester 1 (Tindall)
4 Northampton Saints 5 (Foden, Ashton, Lawes, Hartley, Wood)
5 Bath Rugby 5 (Wilson, Mears, Moody, Banahan, Hape)
6 London Irish 2 (Corbisiero, Armitage)
7 Harlequins 1 (Easter)
8 Exeter Chiefs 0
9 London Wasps 2 (Simpson)
10 Sale Sharks 2 (Sheridan, Cueto)
11 Newcastle Falcons 0
12 Leeds Carnegie 1 (Thompson)

The top teams contributed the vast majority of players to the English cause - not unexpected and as it should be. By the end of this season, I'd expect to see a not dissimilar table

So do you really expect both Tigers and Saints to make it to the playoffs S?

Portnoy, I would certainly predict both will finish in the top half and guarantee HC rugby, with at least one in the playoffs.

I don't think that you can treat this particular issue in isolation tho, there are plenty of other problems that should be sorted in the same vein, but none of that will happen until the shambles that is the RFU is sorted out

Northampton, Bath & Leicester are trying to build top brands in the league, which will see a domination on their part if they are allowed to do so (by removal of the salary cap).

Neither Saints or Tigers want a removal of the salary cap for the simple reason that they would then be completely outbid by Sarries and Bath who have sugar daddies. Saints and Tigers are run as businesses, relatively successful ones and hence they are in favour of raising the salary cap to allow them to continue to grow organically thanks to the extra space provided. LI, Sale and Falcons are all in favour of lowering the salary cap in order that they might drag down and limit the effects of the organic/owner driven growth of the top sides.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

Portnoy wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:Portnoy, it's cause and effect, isn't it? Let's look at the table as it was when last season finished:

1 Leicester Tigers 6 + 1 (Youngs, Cole, Deacon, Tuilagi, Croft, Flood plus Waldrom)
2 Saracens 2 (Stevens, Wigglesworth)
3 Gloucester 1 (Tindall)
4 Northampton Saints 5 (Foden, Ashton, Lawes, Hartley, Wood)
5 Bath Rugby 5 (Wilson, Mears, Moody, Banahan, Hape)
6 London Irish 2 (Corbisiero, Armitage)
7 Harlequins 1 (Easter)
8 Exeter Chiefs 0
9 London Wasps 2 (Simpson)
10 Sale Sharks 2 (Sheridan, Cueto)
11 Newcastle Falcons 0
12 Leeds Carnegie 1 (Thompson)

The top teams contributed the vast majority of players to the English cause - not unexpected and as it should be. By the end of this season, I'd expect to see a not dissimilar table

So do you really expect both Tigers and Saints to make it to the playoffs S?

Portnoy, I would certainly predict both will finish in the top half and guarantee HC rugby, with at least one in the playoffs.

I don't think that you can treat this particular issue in isolation tho, there are plenty of other problems that should be sorted in the same vein, but none of that will happen until the shambles that is the RFU is sorted out

No. You are wrong As.

The whole issue re the the Jeff has historically been driven by a majority vote.

The RFU governs principally England development issues whilst the PRL addresses a majority of professional club interests

This is the same basic problem as the length of the English season.

The clubs don't make a profit, with one notable and Tigerish exception. A couple of others are close to breakeven and may even dip into profit occasionally but aren't consistently profitable.

Suppose you don't play AP matches during RWC or International weekends. You're left with three options:
1) Extend the season into the summer. Not acceptable from a player welfare pov. The PRA would probably insist on internationals having an equivalent break during the season before they'd sign up to it, so you'd be back to square 1

2) Reduce the number of games played. First off, how? How do you decide which games not to play? Secondly, reducing the number of games means clubs lose revenue. If clubs lose revenue and no-one replaces it (and why should the RFU do that? It already compensates the clubs for taking internationals away [1]), sooner or later the weaker clubs will go under. If the weaker clubs go under, everyone's revenue falls and sooner or later the stronger clubs go under, too.

3) Schedule the unplayed games midweek throughout the rest of the season. Which means clubs will have to rest players anyway. I suppose players with lots of internationals could play some in the midweek games and the others at weekends, but it's only a marginal improvement.

4) Deal with it. Leicester and Saints have both been able to field strong teams (on paper) during RWC, even if they haven't been the strongest team they could put out with the whole squad. Where they've suffered seems to me to be in the lack of experience those teams have had in playing together. Tigers lost to Sarries and Quins mainly because they didn't defend well as a team - which suggests to me a lack of preparation rather than a lack of talent.

It's also a bit disingenuous to look only at England absentees. If you take into account injuries and other internationals the picture is a little different. Quins have played the first six games with their 2nd choice scrum half and wings, 3rd choice 7 and 3rd or 4th choice 8.

[1] And by the way, I suspect the reason that the PRL choose to even out the way International money is distributed (rather than distribute it in direct proportion to the number of EPS players in each team) is that they recognise that the financial disparities in the league and the need to even them out until there are enough financially stable clubs. The salary cap is kept low for the same reason: a higher cap is no good to Tigers or Saints if it bankrupts clubs who have not had the necessary years to build a huge fanbase and therefore a sustainable revenue base. When there are 12 clubs in the country that can both field a competitive squad and make money under the current cap arrangements, there's scope for an increase. Until then, it's not in anyone's long term interests.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Its different when your taking lots of OUR players off us though isnt it.....with regards to the premiership....

Parling
Youngs
Brooke
Flood

ring any bells????

First always best to get your names right - we poached Mickey Young, not Ben Youngs (Oh and you forgot Ben Woods)

Also Leicester only spoke to Flood after you chose to release him, Tait and Noon as their presence in England squads was disruptive. You then chose to waste money on Bobo instead.

I do feel sorry for Falcons (especially as the first club I joined was Gosforth) but with the scarce financial resources at their disposal (ie no Sugar daddy and low crowds) they will always be a feeder club as they cannot afford to pay international level salaries and then lose the players for large parts of the season.

With a more organised season as Portnoy is calling for, Falcons would probably lose less players. Rewarding clubs for producing England players would also help teams liek Falcons keep their stars. However Falcons chose to release their England players and voted for equal distribution of funds.

It's not as if the RWC has sneaked up on PRL. They've had four years to figure out any and all innovative methods in which to avoid too much disruption and they came up with .... keep calm and carry on.

But frankly I can't feel sorry for those teams suffering as a result. It is a minor blip in the grand scheme of things, and if you want to know what hardship is like, try being a fan of a team that spends most of it's time trying to stay above relegation, not one that has HEC trophies.

Leicester had time to prepare as well, what happened there?

I do think that this is why a lot of teams/regions do or have in the past bought in a lot of decent (but not top class) foreign players to cover the International windows.

I still think its a bit bizarre that we continuew with competitions through a WC and 6 Nations window.

For me it should be the LV or nothing through these timescales, if it is the LV then there is the chance to use it as the development tournament its menat to be.

The clubs don't make a profit, with one notable and Tigerish exception

Untrue both Chiefs and Saints have also posted profits this year. The Chiefs are likely to remain profitable whilst in the AP and clearly believe they will be as they are embarking on a plan to increase the capacity of their ground. Saints are in a similar situation in that they have good support, reasonable on field successes (relative to their stature) and are also trying to extend their stadium. It isn't all doom and gloom financially speaking. Gloucester and Worcester are self sustaining if not profitable as well, Bath would probabley be as well but have a financial backer pushing them on.

Well blame the majority of Jeff clubs who objected to the LV being entirely in the international break.


In 2015 the NH club game is going to be mauled. There has to be a better solution than the current one.

"First always best to get your names right - we poached Mickey Young, not Ben Youngs (Oh and you forgot Ben Woods)"

Very true i forgot Woods as well..

"Also Leicester only spoke to Flood after you chose to release him, Tait and Noon as their presence in England squads was disruptive. You then chose to waste money on Bobo instead."

Again, cant disagree with any of that....

"With a more organised season as Portnoy is calling for, Falcons would probably lose less players. "

I think i disagree with this though. It may help a little, but i think the lure of bigger clubs is too much for the youngsters regardless of the season structure etc.

The likes of Brookes should be have stayed at us and been pretty much guarenteed premiership rugby...something critical at his age...but instead he is collecting spelks in his arris....

I hope i dont come across as sour grapes (its really not)...and i know we arent big enough to really keep the big players - Johnny was a little bit too loyal for his own good. But its just a little frustrating....to see the new starlets moving on every season....shows a lack of ambition from our board.

Sorry, I should have said "don't consistently make a profit". Based on the RFU's Way Forward review (which was a couple of years ago, but is still a good source of data), several clubs have managed to turn a profit for in an occasional season, but only Leicester managed it over an extended period. The investment in the Cat stand pushed them into the red subsequently but it sounds like they're back on an even keel.

Some of the clubs break even at the operating level but any investment (necessary to improve grounds and bring in more revenue) has to be funded by their backers.

Even where a club is profitable, it's generally not by much. Most of the profits I've seen reported have been in the hundreds of thousands. That's important when we're talking about reducing the season as a possible answer.

Ticket revenue for one game, assuming 10,000 fans and an average ticket price of £25 is £250,000. Take away two home games, and you lose £500k in tickets, plus margin on food & drink, merchandise, lower TV revenues etc. Costs will only drop by a fraction of that, because you only save on the casual staff - you still have to pay the players and coaches.

For the more financially viable clubs, losing two games a year would easily be enough to wipe out the profit they make in a good year.

I think your right Portnoy. The playoffs are necessary to ensure a level playing field. Good point

Sam - where are you finding the information on the financial successes of Clubs? I would be very interested in finding out what the state of play is with Quins. The start of last season we re-developed the north stand, the capacity is 14.8k but i've rarely seen it filled to capacity. Although the recent performances will probably attract more London yuppies to the Stoop.

I had been under the impression that Mark Evans had put in place a faily robust business model that made money, certainly before the stadium expansion. Implementing the big game's at HQ ect.

Sam - where are you finding the information on the financial successes of Clubs?

Well the info for Tigers is pretty easy as most of the fans hold shares in the club and so recieve the financial details upon release (then discuss them on the offy forum). The details on Saints and Chiefs is from press releases. The Saints chariman made quite a song and dance about the financial success of Saints last season. Sadly a lot of the clubs don't give much away so I just don't know what the finances look like. There was journo talk of the Sarries board putting £5m into the club etc but it is as likely to be male cow dung as it is to be reality.

Sorry, I should have said "don't consistently make a profit"

Sanits have made profit consistently since their promotion back into the AP. Chiefs have only had one season in the AP so there is no comparible details.

For the more financially viable clubs, losing two games a year would easily be enough to wipe out the profit they make in a good year..

Agreed.

"I wouldnt rule out a scenario where Northampton, Bath and Leicester walk out on the league and join the Rabbo, as all the teams are similarly affected by player release and there are no spending Caps. I would imagine the RFU would aggree to this if Foreign Limitations are placed on those clubs.

I know people laugh at the notion but rumour has it Leicester already have sounded this possibilty out as an option."


I'd say it would never happen, if Leicester sounded it out, its only to use as an empty threat against the RFU, to get there own way.

The way it's worked out though means that Leicester and th elike may be put off signing English players knowing that they won't be able to play them for chucks of the season, therefore weaking the RFU, as players won't be playing at the top level.

To move the LV cup to be played in the international windows would also have to be agreed to by the IRFU, SFU and FIR, as it would mean the PRO 12 counld't be played while the Welsh teams are in the LV Cup.

If an agreement couldn't be reached it could mean the Welsh are kicked out of the LV cup, and the PRO 12 can either continue as normal (teams lose a more even number of players in Pro 12 so not as big a deal).

Or what I'd like is durning international windows, the 4 Welsh teams play a knock out regional Welsh cup among themselves, The 4 Irish a inter pro cup, and the Scots and Italians play for an Scottish-Italian Cup.

I know people laugh at the notion but rumour has it Leicester already have sounded this possibilty out as an option

That was in response to the infighting over the HEC where Tigers and other big clubs had apparently attempted to set up a world club championship. The idea being the Champions of the Rabbo, AP and Top 14 would take on the top teams from the SANZAR nations and that the extra revenue streams would be split amongst the leagues meaning extra revenue for everyone. The idea never got off the ground. Neither has the unsubstaniated rumours of a possible European League.

Scrap the LV Cup - strengthen the British and Irish Cup to include all the Premiership A-sides (which aside from this LV cup following the WC is what most of the premiership teams play anyway in a normal season).

The number of games wouldnt change (no fixture congestion) - The English Championship gets more exposure to premiership teams ect.

I think the B&I cup already constitutes the English Championship, Irish 'A' provinces, welsh premiership clubs and a few Scots prem clubs.

I think it would work, there would have to be split into random pools ect. into a knockout cup format - could be good, and there is the potential for more derby's that might draw a larger crowd.

Whats everyones thoughts?

If the main point of this article is to suggest the AP should be suspended during international windows and comment on how clubs' league positions are effected by not having their full compliment, surely all the foreign internationals should be added to the list to give a correct picture.

Probably a good idea to show the full IRB calendar to see where the games would have to be fitted into. If matches aren't played during the AIs or 6N, you'd also have to make sure the competiton doesn't run on to the time alotted to summer tours and the PNC (plenty of Pacific Islanders employed over here). Then there is obvioulsy the HC to accomodate as well.

Kingshu wrote:"Or what I'd like is durning international windows, the 4 Welsh teams play a knock out regional Welsh cup among themselves, The 4 Irish a inter pro cup, and the Scots and Italians play for an Scottish-Italian Cup.

Kingshu, I absolutely love the sound of that, as they are all Welsh derby's they would all be sell outs and have a cracking atmosphere, they could be played on a Friday night, before the international's on the next day, as an appetiser, in fact what you have suggested is such a good idea that the likes of the WRU would probably look straight passed it This must be the way forward as nobody likes to go out and watch a 3rd/4th choice team as we are seeing in the LV (the Welsh sides are anyway), but the Welsh derby's always draws in the big crowds

radelven wrote:If the main point of this article is to suggest the AP should be suspended during international windows and comment on how clubs' league positions are effected by not having their full compliment, surely all the foreign internationals should be added to the list to give a correct picture.

Probably a good idea to show the full IRB calendar to see where the games would have to be fitted into. If matches aren't played during the AIs or 6N, you'd also have to make sure the competiton doesn't run on to the time alotted to summer tours and the PNC (plenty of Pacific Islanders employed over here). Then there is obvioulsy the HC to accomodate as well.

See my thread for how it works out if you only play the LV= cup during internationals (AIs and 6 nations). You basically end up with almost no time off for player rest over the summer.

THREAD LINK

radelven wrote:If the main point of this article is to suggest the AP should be suspended during international windows and comment on how clubs' league positions are effected by not having their full compliment, surely all the foreign internationals should be added to the list to give a correct picture.

Yes, what does the OP's list look like with the clubs credited with all their internationals, not just the English ones?

stlowe wrote:

radelven wrote:If the main point of this article is to suggest the AP should be suspended during international windows and comment on how clubs' league positions are effected by not having their full compliment, surely all the foreign internationals should be added to the list to give a correct picture.

Yes, what does the OP's list look like with the clubs credited with all their internationals, not just the English ones?

I suspect that Leics would still be one of the hardest hit, but if they've chosen to recruit non-English internationals, then is that just their tough look-out?

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

stlowe wrote:

radelven wrote:If the main point of this article is to suggest the AP should be suspended during international windows and comment on how clubs' league positions are effected by not having their full compliment, surely all the foreign internationals should be added to the list to give a correct picture.

Yes, what does the OP's list look like with the clubs credited with all their internationals, not just the English ones?

I suspect that Leics would still be one of the hardest hit, but if they've chosen to recruit non-English internationals, then is that just their tough look-out?

When they chose Waldrom because he couldn't get an international call up they were a bit hard done by when he found his granny.

I think Leicester would be one of the hardest hit, I don't think they have massively more foreigners than any one else (though I'm sure they're near the top), but their foreign players tend to be internationals. It's definitely true to say that the clubs knew what they were going to be faced with this season long before it happened though.

screamingaddabs wrote:

radelven wrote:If the main point of this article is to suggest the AP should be suspended during international windows and comment on how clubs' league positions are effected by not having their full compliment, surely all the foreign internationals should be added to the list to give a correct picture.

Probably a good idea to show the full IRB calendar to see where the games would have to be fitted into. If matches aren't played during the AIs or 6N, you'd also have to make sure the competiton doesn't run on to the time alotted to summer tours and the PNC (plenty of Pacific Islanders employed over here). Then there is obvioulsy the HC to accomodate as well.

See my thread for how it works out if you only play the LV= cup during internationals (AIs and 6 nations). You basically end up with almost no time off for player rest over the summer.

THREAD LINK

Well worked out screamingaddabs, though in terms of a club having all its players available throughout the season, what your calendar doesn't account for is England calling its team together for training a couple of weeks before the first fixture. If you were to accomodate that you'd have to have 3-4 fallow weekends and would eat up most of June, mid-June being when summer tours usually start and the players being required for training by the beginning of the month or even earlier if they've got to head down to the other side of the world. The other option would be to do away with the AIs (not something I'd particularly like to see and the money men certainly wouldn't allow) and recover 4 weekends.

I suspect that Leics would still be one of the hardest hit, but if they've chosen to recruit non-English internationals, then is that just their tough look-out?.

Should they now be punished for not only producing the most English players (6 of the England squad came through the academy) they must be punished for not signing average foreign journeymen? Most of the foreign signings were little known players before signing for Tigers for instance Marcos Ayerza wasn't even a professional rugby player.

Yes, what does the OP's list look like with the clubs credited with all their internationals, not just the English ones?.

Well Tigers would be down Ayerza, Castro, Cole, Deacon, Croft, Waldrom, Youngs, Flood, Tuilagi, Manu, Agulla and Geordan in total that's 12 players missing from the starting line up. Tigers had about enough players to cover before the injuries to Crane, Newby, Skivington, Allen, Brookes, White, Smith, Young and Tait's on going issues. That's almost a full match day squad missing through a mixture of bad luck and RWC call ups.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

stlowe wrote:

radelven wrote:If the main point of this article is to suggest the AP should be suspended during international windows and comment on how clubs' league positions are effected by not having their full compliment, surely all the foreign internationals should be added to the list to give a correct picture.

Yes, what does the OP's list look like with the clubs credited with all their internationals, not just the English ones?

I suspect that Leics would still be one of the hardest hit, but if they've chosen to recruit non-English internationals, then is that just their tough look-out?

The reason I excluded the mercenaries As, is because first and foremost I am an Englishman. And I don't see why any English club should be disproportionately handicapped by providing English players to the England cause.

Ironically you, yourself expressed the opinion other day that England should not select Tom Johnson as he is a valuable Chiefs asset.

That's a small (and probably fatuous) point, but some people around here seem to expect English professional rugby to be run like the NHS.

I don't work in the country of my birth, anyone who called me a mercenary would get a talking to. A serious talking to.

Such dismissive rhetoric isn't very helpful.

greybeard wrote:I don't work in the country of my birth, anyone who called me a mercenary would get a talking to. A serious talking to.

Such dismissive rhetoric isn't very helpful.

I suspect you are therefore doing voluntary service overseaS?
Otherwise why make the dispassionate decision to leave your own country? Clearly for financial (mercinary) gain...

Portnoy wrote:

greybeard wrote:I don't work in the country of my birth, anyone who called me a mercenary would get a talking to. A serious talking to.

Such dismissive rhetoric isn't very helpful.

I suspect you are therefore doing voluntary service overseaS?
Otherwise why make the dispassionate decision to leave your own country? Clearly for financial (mercinary) gain...

Don't talk rubbish Portnoy. Some people can't work at the job they are good at in their country due to lack of availability (e.g. Samoan rugby players). Some people choose to leave the country of their birth for family reasons such as their parents emigrating (e.g. some of the Tuilagis), others simply want a change of scenery and work in a foreign country for a short while. They are not "mercenaries"

(A Mercenary, also known as a professional soldier, soldier of fortune, swashbuckler, private military contractor, or freelancer, is a person who takes part in an armed conflict who is not a national or a party to the conflict and is "motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party". A non-conscript professional member of a regular army is not considered to be a mercenary although he gets monetary reward from his service.) Thanks wiki.

To suggest so is distasteful.

Portnoy wrote: The reason I excluded the mercenaries As, is because first and foremost I am an Englishman. And I don't see why any English club should be disproportionately handicapped by providing English players to the England cause.

But in terms of your original point about how clubs are effected by playing during the international windows, it is very relevant.

I think it's a bit unfair to call all foreign players mercenaries. Those form the PIs, Argentina, N.America & E.Europe don't have professional leagues in their home countries and don't deserve the mercenary tag when going abroad is the only way they could hope to avoid amateurism.

screamingaddabs wrote:

Portnoy wrote:

greybeard wrote:I don't work in the country of my birth, anyone who called me a mercenary would get a talking to. A serious talking to.

Such dismissive rhetoric isn't very helpful.

I suspect you are therefore doing voluntary service overseaS?
Otherwise why make the dispassionate decision to leave your own country? Clearly for financial (mercinary) gain...

Don't talk rubbish Portnoy. Some people can't work at the job they are good at in their country due to lack of availability (e.g. Samoan rugby players). Some people choose to leave the country of their birth for family reasons such as their parents emigrating (e.g. some of the Tuilagis), others simply want a change of scenery and work in a foreign country for a short while. They are not "mercenaries"

(A Mercenary, also known as a professional soldier, soldier of fortune, swashbuckler, private military contractor, or freelancer, is a person who takes part in an armed conflict who is not a national or a party to the conflict and is "motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party". A non-conscript professional member of a regular army is not considered to be a mercenary although he gets monetary reward from his service.) Thanks wiki.

To suggest so is distasteful.

Balls screamingmer·ce·nar·y (mûrs-nr)
adj.
1. Motivated solely by a desire for monetary or material gain.
2. Hired for service in a foreign army.
n. pl. mer·ce·nar·ies
1. One who serves or works merely for monetary gain; a hireling.
2. A professional soldier hired for service in a foreign army.

Thanks google.

I'll prefer to take the primary definition thanks.

To deliberately misconstrue another's words is both disingenuous and distasteful.

"
Balls screamingmer·ce·nar·y (mûrs-nr)
adj.
1. Motivated solely by a desire for monetary or material gain.
2. Hired for service in a foreign army.
n. pl. mer·ce·nar·ies
1. One who serves or works merely for monetary gain; a hireling.
2. A professional soldier hired for service in a foreign army.

Thanks google.

I'll prefer to take the primary definition thanks.

To deliberately misconstrue another's words is both disingenuous and distasteful."

So your saying that all these people moved SOLEY for the desire for money? And you think that anyone who works in a foreign country does so ONLY FOR MONEY. I think that's rather distasteful yes.

Portnoy wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

stlowe wrote:

radelven wrote:If the main point of this article is to suggest the AP should be suspended during international windows and comment on how clubs' league positions are effected by not having their full compliment, surely all the foreign internationals should be added to the list to give a correct picture.

Yes, what does the OP's list look like with the clubs credited with all their internationals, not just the English ones?

I suspect that Leics would still be one of the hardest hit, but if they've chosen to recruit non-English internationals, then is that just their tough look-out?

The reason I excluded the mercenaries As, is because first and foremost I am an Englishman. And I don't see why any English club should be disproportionately handicapped by providing English players to the England cause.

Ironically you, yourself expressed the opinion other day that England should not select Tom Johnson as he is a valuable Chiefs asset.

That's a small (and probably fatuous) point, but some people around here seem to expect English professional rugby to be run like the NHS.

No twisting meanings, Portnoy, that was clearly tongue in cheek - I'd be delighted for TJ, even tho the Chiefs would miss him big-time

formerly known as Sam wrote:

I suspect that Leics would still be one of the hardest hit, but if they've chosen to recruit non-English internationals, then is that just their tough look-out?.

Should they now be punished for not only producing the most English players (6 of the England squad came through the academy) they must be punished for not signing average foreign journeymen? Most of the foreign signings were little known players before signing for Tigers for instance Marcos Ayerza wasn't even a professional rugby player.

Yes, what does the OP's list look like with the clubs credited with all their internationals, not just the English ones?.

Well Tigers would be down Ayerza, Castro, Cole, Deacon, Croft, Waldrom, Youngs, Flood, Tuilagi, Manu, Agulla and Geordan in total that's 12 players missing from the starting line up. Tigers had about enough players to cover before the injuries to Crane, Newby, Skivington, Allen, Brookes, White, Smith, Young and Tait's on going issues. That's almost a full match day squad missing through a mixture of bad luck and RWC call ups.

Sam, I deliberately put this in the form of a question, as not entirely sure of the answer myself. But I think you hit the nail on the head later in your post - it is really the unlucky spate of injuries that have hurt the Tigers, who otherwise might well have been adequately covered during the RWC